Someone said in another thread that Joseph Smith changed his mind about certain things as his understanding progressed and he understood more. Thus, the conflict between the 2-personed Godhead of the Lectures on Faith and the 3-personed one of section 130.

It seems to me that such doctrinal evolution would be a positive thing, although I think all of us have heard the statement "Policies change, but doctrines don't" many times. But I thought I'd throw this out: is church doctrine evolving with time? Some people believe that certain "embarrassing" doctrines have been downplayed or blurred, but do you see continuing doctrinal change? And if so, is this a good thing?

The only way doctrine can remain impure is to cut off the flow of revelation. Joseph Smith's question of, "How long can rolling waters remain impure?" was designed to teach this. The dogmatic and those who will not seek revelation will eventually stagnate.

The only way doctrine can remain impure is to cut off the flow of revelation. Joseph Smith's question of, "How long can rolling waters remain impure?" was designed to teach this. The dogmatic and those who will not seek revelation will eventually stagnate.

The only way doctrine can remain impure is to cut off the flow of revelation. Joseph Smith's question of, "How long can rolling waters remain impure?" was designed to teach this. The dogmatic and those who will not seek revelation will eventually stagnate.

That assumes that the doctrine was pure to begin with.

No, not really. In fact, the doctrine should become purer with time and purer as more revelation comes. In my own life my understanding of God is VASTLY different than it was 10 or even 5 years ago. The Church hasn't changed what it's teaching. I've changed. Joseph Smith's rough stone rolling metaphor is correct. As revelation comes false suppositions and inferences I've drawn are knocked down and replaced with better ones which are often in turn knocked down themselves.

As revelation comes false suppositions and inferences I've drawn are knocked down and replaced with better ones which are often in turn knocked down themselves.

I understand that "false suppositions and inferences" from men can be knocked down by actual revelations, but how would one revelation be knocked down by another one -- "often in turn knocked down themselves." Does God talk or not? And if he speaks why would he have to go back and correct himself? Did people screw up the revelation or did God get it wrong the first time?

Either way, there seems to be reason to question everything they tell you. Skepticism should operate in Mormonism as much as it does in business, science, or politics.

_________________"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond

As revelation comes false suppositions and inferences I've drawn are knocked down and replaced with better ones which are often in turn knocked down themselves.

I understand that "false suppositions and inferences" from men can be knocked down by actual revelations, but how would one revelation be knocked down by another one -- "often in turn knocked down themselves." Does God talk or not? And if he speaks why would he have to go back and correct himself? Did people screw up the revelation or did God get it wrong the first time?

Either way, there seems to be reason to question everything they tell you. Skepticism should operate in Mormonism as much as it does in business, science, or politics.

I was unclear. The suppositions and inferences that get knocked out are my interpretation and application of what I've been taught by God not the revelation itself. Then new revelation either discredits or expands on what I'd previously learned and new conclusions come to in turn be removed or expanded on. The revelation is pure. The human mind has to sort out what it contained and apply it. This is also why I'm leery of some people's 'revelations'. Even if I believe they had a real experience they often start tacking on their own conclusions and guesses as to why it happened.

I was unclear. The suppositions and inferences that get knocked out are my interpretation and application of what I've been taught by God not the revelation itself. Then new revelation either discredits or expands on what I'd previously learned and new conclusions come to in turn be removed or expanded on. The revelation is pure. The human mind has to sort out what it contained and apply it. This is also why I'm leery of some people's 'revelations'. Even if I believe they had a real experience they often start tacking on their own conclusions and guesses as to why it happened.

That is why I am leery of everyone else's revelations. Including prophets', apostles', and assorted other church leaders'. I have yet to see any revelation that is more appropriate for me than my own. And because I refuse to allow anyone else to tell me what is best for me, I am called apostate by some, and wise by others. Go figure.

That is why I am leery of everyone else's revelations. Including prophets', apostles', and assorted other church leaders'. I have yet to see any revelation that is more appropriate for me than my own. And because I refuse to allow anyone else to tell me what is best for me, I am called apostate by some, and wise by others. Go figure.

OMG, I love you... I have argued this many times. The prophet and church authorities receive revelation for themselves and that which they govern, but the DO NOT receive it for others. God speaks to us about our own revelations.

I was unclear. The suppositions and inferences that get knocked out are my interpretation and application of what I've been taught by God not the revelation itself. Then new revelation either discredits or expands on what I'd previously learned and new conclusions come to in turn be removed or expanded on. The revelation is pure. The human mind has to sort out what it contained and apply it. This is also why I'm leery of some people's 'revelations'. Even if I believe they had a real experience they often start tacking on their own conclusions and guesses as to why it happened.

That is why I am leery of everyone else's revelations. Including prophets', apostles', and assorted other church leaders'. I have yet to see any revelation that is more appropriate for me than my own. And because I refuse to allow anyone else to tell me what is best for me, I am called apostate by some, and wise by others. Go figure.

When leaders share with me instruction I generally accept it. When they start telling me why it is important for me to do such-and-such I take it with a shaker of salt. When they declare direct doctrine I listen for confirmation from the Spirit. When they wander off with the ramifications of that doctrine and what it means and how it relates to everything else they can very easily be wrong. When they start telling stories or reading poetry I fall asleep :)

But I thought I'd throw this out: is church doctrine evolving with time?

Of course it is. Witness the church's official site referring people to FARMS's website for DNA/Lamanite information for all the proof you need of that.

Quote:

Some people believe that certain "embarrassing" doctrines have been downplayed or blurred, but do you see continuing doctrinal change?

Of course. Witness the rise of Internet Mormonism and how the church hasn't come out and denounced it (yet?).

Quote:

And if so, is this a good thing?

It all depends on what you want. If you want an easy religion that you don't have to be embarrassed about, then it's great. If you want a religion that teaches the truth of God with precision and exactness, then it's not good at all.

_________________"The Book of Abraham has proven to be as obvious a fraud as the Salamander Letter. . . Actually, that's an unfair comparison. The Salamander Letter was a much more impressive fraud than the Book of Abraham."

That is why I am leery of everyone else's revelations. Including prophets', apostles', and assorted other church leaders'. I have yet to see any revelation that is more appropriate for me than my own. And because I refuse to allow anyone else to tell me what is best for me, I am called apostate by some, and wise by others. Go figure.

OMG, I love you... I have argued this many times. The prophet and church authorities receive revelation for themselves and that which they govern, but the DO NOT receive it for others. God speaks to us about our own revelations.

Nephi, if the above OMG is short for OH MY GOD, you need to speak with the resident Bishop Peterson, as that is a sin for Mormons.

I think church doctrine is devolving, rather than evolving. It's getting to be less and less, almost as if the unique doctrines of the LDS church are disappearing. Adam-God? We don't teach that. Man progressing to Gods? We don't teach that. Eternal polygamy? We don't teach that. We don't teach much of anything that's unique anymore, except the stuff that doesn't matter in the eternities: what you ate, what you drank, how many earrings you had, what color your shirt was on Sunday... We spend an inordinant amount of time bustling around the inconsequentials, very little time on the basics, absolutely no time on anything beyond the basics, and altogether too much time worrying about money and numbers.

I think church doctrine is devolving, rather than evolving. It's getting to be less and less, almost as if the unique doctrines of the LDS church are disappearing. Adam-God? We don't teach that. Man progressing to Gods? We don't teach that. Eternal polygamy? We don't teach that. We don't teach much of anything that's unique anymore, except the stuff that doesn't matter in the eternities: what you ate, what you drank, how many earrings you had, what color your shirt was on Sunday... We spend an inordinant amount of time bustling around the inconsequentials, very little time on the basics, absolutely no time on anything beyond the basics, and altogether too much time worrying about money and numbers.

No offense to the masses, but I think this is a biproduct of the church becoming larger and larger. I think the church still believes in many of these ideas, but they do not "teach" them (ie, openly speak of them in church or public) because most people cannot grasp these concepts. The church has had to boil down to the lowest common denominator.

That is why I am leery of everyone else's revelations. Including prophets', apostles', and assorted other church leaders'. I have yet to see any revelation that is more appropriate for me than my own. And because I refuse to allow anyone else to tell me what is best for me, I am called apostate by some, and wise by others. Go figure.

OMG, I love you...

Well, I appreciate the support. It's not the norm, although I get more here than I do elsewhere.

Quote:

I have argued this many times. The prophet and church authorities receive revelation for themselves and that which they govern, but the DO NOT receive it for others. God speaks to us about our own revelations.

I've often said our leaders overstep their stewardship too often. They, like many others, don't take care of their own stewardship, and then they take on stewardship they have no business messing with. Altogether too much of our 'revelations' over the last 30 years are examples of our leaders meddling in things that are not their business. Which tells me that our leaders don't see any clearer than we do, and in some cases at least, see even less than we do. Perhaps their spiritual eyes are as clouded with spiritual cataracts (pride, ego, arrogance), but truly I've seen little that is useful in the last 3 decades.

I think church doctrine is devolving, rather than evolving. It's getting to be less and less, almost as if the unique doctrines of the LDS church are disappearing. Adam-God? We don't teach that. Man progressing to Gods? We don't teach that. Eternal polygamy? We don't teach that. We don't teach much of anything that's unique anymore, except the stuff that doesn't matter in the eternities: what you ate, what you drank, how many earrings you had, what color your shirt was on Sunday... We spend an inordinant amount of time bustling around the inconsequentials, very little time on the basics, absolutely no time on anything beyond the basics, and altogether too much time worrying about money and numbers.

No offense to the masses, but I think this is a biproduct of the church becoming larger and larger. I think the church still believes in many of these ideas, but they do not "teach" them (ie, openly speak of them in church or public) because most people cannot grasp these concepts. The church has had to boil down to the lowest common denominator.

I think the reason we don't teach them anymore is because they make us look like fools. It has little to do with the ability of the members to grasp the concepts, and a great deal to do with explaining said concepts to a highly skeptical media.

That which made us unique (our doctrines, our out-spoken leaders, the differentness of our culture) is being shoved in the closet to make room for mainstreaming and political correctness. Our leaders are forced to lie, prevaricate, and spin rather than openly declare doctrine. Pres Benson was right; this church is under condemnation.

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:14 amPosts: 5522Location: Over at the Frankenstein place

Nephi wrote:

harmony wrote:

I think church doctrine is devolving, rather than evolving. It's getting to be less and less, almost as if the unique doctrines of the LDS church are disappearing. Adam-God? We don't teach that. Man progressing to Gods? We don't teach that. Eternal polygamy? We don't teach that. We don't teach much of anything that's unique anymore, except the stuff that doesn't matter in the eternities: what you ate, what you drank, how many earrings you had, what color your shirt was on Sunday... We spend an inordinant amount of time bustling around the inconsequentials, very little time on the basics, absolutely no time on anything beyond the basics, and altogether too much time worrying about money and numbers.

No offense to the masses, but I think this is a biproduct of the church becoming larger and larger. I think the church still believes in many of these ideas, but they do not "teach" them (ie, openly speak of them in church or public) because most people cannot grasp these concepts. The church has had to boil down to the lowest common denominator.

The church is not growing. Spoken like a true sucker.

_________________And crawling on the planet's faceSome insects called the human raceLost in timeAnd lost in space...and meaning

I think church doctrine is devolving, rather than evolving. It's getting to be less and less, almost as if the unique doctrines of the LDS church are disappearing. Adam-God? We don't teach that. Man progressing to Gods? We don't teach that. Eternal polygamy? We don't teach that. We don't teach much of anything that's unique anymore, except the stuff that doesn't matter in the eternities: what you ate, what you drank, how many earrings you had, what color your shirt was on Sunday... We spend an inordinant amount of time bustling around the inconsequentials, very little time on the basics, absolutely no time on anything beyond the basics, and altogether too much time worrying about money and numbers.

No offense to the masses, but I think this is a biproduct of the church becoming larger and larger. I think the church still believes in many of these ideas, but they do not "teach" them (ie, openly speak of them in church or public) because most people cannot grasp these concepts. The church has had to boil down to the lowest common denominator.

The church is not growing. Spoken like a true sucker.

I never stipulated that the membership of the church is growing (you assumed that). I am stipulating that the church is growing in the eye of the world community. More people know of the church and are searching for what the church believes, but many cannot understand such concepts, and the media with which they gain this information is notorious for spinning the info that is given.

I think church doctrine is devolving, rather than evolving. It's getting to be less and less, almost as if the unique doctrines of the LDS church are disappearing. Adam-God? We don't teach that. Man progressing to Gods? We don't teach that. Eternal polygamy? We don't teach that. We don't teach much of anything that's unique anymore, except the stuff that doesn't matter in the eternities: what you ate, what you drank, how many earrings you had, what color your shirt was on Sunday... We spend an inordinant amount of time bustling around the inconsequentials, very little time on the basics, absolutely no time on anything beyond the basics, and altogether too much time worrying about money and numbers.

No offense to the masses, but I think this is a biproduct of the church becoming larger and larger. I think the church still believes in many of these ideas, but they do not "teach" them (ie, openly speak of them in church or public) because most people cannot grasp these concepts. The church has had to boil down to the lowest common denominator.

The church is not growing. Spoken like a true sucker.

It's certainly larger than it was when Brigham was boldly declaring doctrine to the world. Ya gotta give those old guys credit; they didn't back down, just because what they thought was both bizarre and unacceptable to their neighbors.